I don't think you'll ever find a fixed definition. The only question is
whether the resolution is high enough for the intended size and purpose.
As Moose pointed out, this was a 2MP image which is quite sufficient
for a good 8x10 and some good uprezzing software could make a good 16x20
from it. Given that her images were rather soft splashes of color
without fine detail like an architectural shot it's quite possible that
one could go well beyond 16x20 for her specific images.
I have a friend who has a 24x36 print of a photo of his daughter holding
her cat. Since the image covers from somewhere above her waist to above
her head it's quite close to life size. Viewed from several feet away
(as it should be for that size) it's a gorgeous print with no obvious
noise or pixellation. The photo was taken with a Canyon D30 at 3MP.
So, what's high resolution. It depends. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
khen lim wrote:
> Maybe what she thinks is low res, others think is high. It's difficult
> enough to get everyone to agree to a single specific definition for the word
> <high resolution>. Exactly how high is <high>? Is anything at 2.0Mpx and
> above considered <high>? If there is <high-res>, is there also <very high
> res> and <ultra-high res>?
>
> Not here to stir things up but this thing about definitions has been bugging
> me for years and I just thought I see an opportunity here to see what others
> think.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|